In his latest move in what is seemingly a war on the LGBT community, Mitt Romney has stated that hospital visitation is a benefit, as opposed to a right, for homosexual couples. In stark contrast, Obama’s move two years ago was to mandate that hospitals must treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples. This includes (but is not limited to) visitation rights. Visitation rights are also described under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
Romney is notorious for constantly changing positions, but his fight against marriage equality is one of his few stances he seems rather firm on. He doesn’t cite his religion as the reason why (although the Church of Jesus Chris of Latter Day Saints is notorious for their war against marriage equality). Instead, as Buzzfeed reports, a campaign adviser has said:
In a little-noted comment in the spin room following this past week’s presidential debate in New York, Romney campaign senior adviser Bay Buchanan, the sister of former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, told The Advocate‘s Julie Bolcer, “He very much supports traditional marriage, but he’s also a very strong advocate for the Tenth Amendment. It’s a state issue.”
Why can’t they just be honest and admit they are full of hate?
Let’s look at the gay marriage issue objectively and asexually. If it’s against your religion, don’t get married to a same-sex partner. You can’t push you religion on others. If you think it’s traditional, you should know that Native Americans — if you weren’t aware, they lived here first — practiced homosexual marriages in a couple of hundred tribes for hundreds of years with thousands of marriages. If you think it ruins the sanctity of marriage, at this point you’re making things up to try to prove your case. I know that because if you truly think that our society believes every marriage is “sacred” then you need to walk through the tabloid section in a store.
What is very interesting is that the Romney campaign is now saying that Romney won’t get in the way of individual state rights, as per the Constitution’s Amendment X (state’s rights). Buzzfeed reports, saying,
The report also stated that when asked about how Romney’s opposition to same-sex couples’ marriage rights, including his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, would help same-sex parents, “Buchanan responded that Romney would not get in the way of what states decide to do on marriage and adoption.”
If that’s true, why is his signature on the following piece of paper?
The New Civil Rights Movement website has an article on the issue, and they state:
And what does the NOM pledge require? USA Today summed it up well:
- Sending a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman to the states for ratification.
- Defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which includes the traditional definition of marriage and bans states from recognizing gay marriage, in court.
- Appointing federal judges and an attorney general who are opposed to a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
- Appointing a commission to investigate claims of harassment against those people who support marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
- Supporting legislation that would give people living in the District of Columbia the right to vote on marriage.
Mitt Romney’s website proudly states:
Like any family, the Romneys have faced hardship: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, and more recently fought a battle with breast cancer. She credits her husband’s unwavering care and devotion to her for helping her through these ordeals.
So, while Mitt and Ann recognize how important it is to face health crises together, he would actually allow states to prohibit same-sex couples from having the same hospital visitation rights that he and Ann have. We’re not allowed to exercise “unwavering care and devotion” like the Romneys.
Stand on the side of history. This election is about so much more than Barack vs. Mitt, Democrat vs. Republican. The Tea Party fringe groups that have hijacked the GOP are pulling half the country ever closer to an insane regression. This election is about just that; progression vs. regression.
I would be delighted if you joined me on Facebook for instant access to my articles.
